Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent terminations

["Chuong N. Nguyen" <[e-mail]>]

I thought the reason that we decided to have SDP TDM is to get away from
TDM package
to be more inline w/how we specify RTP termination characteristics.
Also to reuse the good stuffs from RTP/ATM SDP.

I guess we can start by asking the questions

1) Can we live w/o the TDM package?
2) Can we just use SDP for TDM going forward?
3) For backward compatibility, just leave TDM package as is and don't
extend it anymore.

For the TDM package, echo control is understood but the Gain control is
not quite right.
I have discussed the Gain control before and gotten nowhere.

Gain control is also defined in the SDP for ATM which seems more
correct.



Carl Rutter wrote:

> Chuong,There was several ideas bouncing around but I don't
> believethere was any closure.  There is a hole for G711 since we can't
> use annexa or annexb.Lifting the support in RFC 3108, section 5.6.3.2
> and putting it intothe TDM Circuit Package would give us a lot of
> flexibility.Here are the ideas I know of:1)
>
> Another option is to extend the TDM Circuit Package (which has been
>
> previously discussed on the list). The TDM Cicruit Package
>
> currently has Gain and Echo Control as its properties. So, it's
> logical
>
> (IMO) for Silence Suppression to be part of the package as
>
> well. In fact, it looks like an oversight that it was missed off in
> the
>
> first place.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Cutler
>
> 2)
>
> Another possibility is to use payload 13 as defined in
> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-05.  E.g.:
>
> Media={Stream=1{ Local {
> v=0
> c=IN IP4 $
> m=audio $ RTP/AVP 0 13
> }}}
>
> David Barr
>
> 3)
>
> I'm starting to think that the answer may be to use the a=silenceSupp
> attribute defined in RFC 3108, section 5.6.3.2.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Chuong N. Nguyen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>      Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:59 PM
>      Cc: [e-mail]
>      Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent
>      terminations
>
>
>      So what was that discussion about adding silence suppression
>      to TDM package?
>
>      Do we use SDP TDM or TDM package or both?
>      Or even worse combination of both within 1 command w/some
>      parameters defined by TDM package and
>      some parameters defined by SDP TDM.
>
>
>
>      Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>
>     > As I noted earlier, you do need to specify the properties
>     > in the NAS case.
>     > The SDP TDM draft has certainly had time to ripen, and I
>     > will reissue it and
>     > the NAS packages within the next week.
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Chuong N. Nguyen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:48 PM
>     > To: [e-mail]
>     > Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and
>     > Permanent terminations
>     >
>     >
>     > I don't know about the sendrecv issue here.
>     > I don't know what you mean by SDP parameters are of no
>     > significance in case
>     > of phy. term.
>     > Tom wrote the SDP TDM draft which I wonder what is the
>     > status of this draft.
>     >
>     > But I can't remember now whether it was intended to be
>     > used in local or
>     > localControl Descriptor.
>     >
>     >
>     > Madhu Babu Brahmanapally wrote:
>     > HI Rajesh/All,
>     > Not all parameters might be useful for the MG/MGC in case
>     > of physical
>     > terminations. The SDP parameters are of no significance in
>     > case of physical
>     > terminations (in normal scenario). Hence the mode was set
>     > to "sendrecv"
>     > without specifying the local/remote descriptor
>     > information.
>     > Regards
>     > Madhubabu
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: [e-mail]
>     > [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of
>     > Rajesh N
>     > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 11:32 AM
>     > To: [e-mail]
>     > Subject: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent
>     > terminations
>     > Hi,
>     > Sometime back there was a thread regarding usage of
>     > SendRecv mode for an
>     > ephemeral termination, when Remote Descriptor values are
>     > yet to be defined.
>     > And one of the choices for the MG in such a situation is
>     > to reply back with
>     > error 411, "missing remote or local descriptor".
>     > I would like to know, what is the significance of this
>     > problem w.r.to
>     > permanent terminations. The example call flow in the draft
>     > shows a Modify
>     > request for a permanent termination, from MGC to MG1, in
>     > which mode is set
>     > as SendRecv and  the Local descriptor values alone are
>     > being provided.
>     > Are local and remote descriptors relevant for physical
>     > terminations? If
>     > yes, where should I get the values from?
>     > Thanks
>     > Regards,
>     > Rajesh N
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Megaco mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>     > ---
>     > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses and is clean.]
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Megaco mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>     > --
>     >   Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet:
>     > [e-mail]
>     >   1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:
>     > [phone]
>     >   **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel
>     > USA, Inc ****
>     >
>
>      --
>        Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [e-mail]
>        1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    [phone]
>        **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****
>
>
>
--
  Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [e-mail]
  1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    [phone]
  **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****